Steelie: the Mariori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored.

Eer... The Moriori were farmed like cattle & eaten by the Maoris until the British stepped in in 1838.

Steelie: Finally of course there was a war with the inhabitants. It was one of the longest military campaigns of the last two hundred years involving significant numbers of men and material. Go learn some history my friend

A 200 year with the inhabitance. I take it that you were talking about New Zeeland here. I thought at first it was Australia. The only Army raised to fight the Colonials by the Kalkadoon Aboriginal tribe was in Mt. Isa & was quickly defeated. There was to be a Movie made about it, somehow it was shelved. A couple of my Kalkadoon mates were supposed to be in the Movie. They used to let them out of jail to play football on weekends & they were going to let them out to make the Movie. ?That was back in the 70's.

The Kalkadoon Wars
Date:1870-1890
Location:Mount Isa region, western Queensland
Result:British victory
Belligerents;
British colonists
Kalkadoon people
Casualties and losses:900
The Kalkadoon Wars were a series of encounters between European colonists and the Kalkadoon people of Australia.

Europeans started settling in the Kalkadoon's homelands around 1860. At first relations were peaceful but as numbers of new settlers increased, things became more hostile and the Kalkadoons eventually resorted to guerilla war.

Battle Mountain
In 1884 the Kalkadoons killed five native police and a prominent pastoralist. The Queensland government sent in heavily armed police and ended up fighting the Kalkadoon at Battle Mountain. The Europeans were ultimately victorious.

The only armed insurrection by Aboriginal People in Australia.

Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 20 January 2018 7:10:08 PM
Persons born in Australia no longer were classed as British subjects but as Australian citizens ON 26th JANUARY 1949. We all celebrate as Australian Citizens on that date. No other date has any significance. Aboriginals already have 13 days throughout the year celebrating events on their calendar, none that include all Australian Citizens.

"Australian citizenship was created through the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and came into effect 26 January 1949, soon after the post-war mass migration program was launched (in 1945).[1] Prior to 1949, Australians could only hold the status of British subjects. The development of Australian citizenship has been intertwined with immigration since Federation. This relationship has developed formally through government administrative structures and has been demonstrated in the way that changes to citizenship law have reflected changes in immigration policies. The success of the migration program has been consistently linked to citizenship outcomes for migrants."

That is why we have citizen ceremonies on the 26th of January. This has nothing to do with murders carried out by early settlers, which by the way was brought to justice and punished by hanging.

it has everything to do with being a citizen of Australia; and it also includes all aboriginals.

Here is what Aboriginal nations of Australia believe their Treaty should be. Note they see themselves as another Nation within Australia. What does Makarrata mean? Many Aboriginal people use the word ‘Makarrata’ when talking about treaty. It’s a word from the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land and has several layers of meaning: Peacemaking. Makarrata literally means “a spear penetrating”, a traditional practice Aboriginal people used as punishment. If a person was hit by a spear, usually through the thigh, they couldn’t hunt or walk properly anymore. This settled them down, forced them to be calm and rest to heal. Hence Makarrata interpretation as “peace after a dispute”. Conflict resolution. Another meaning relates to a negotiation of peace, or a negotiation and an agreement where both parties agree to avoid dispute or bad feelings. This meaning is closely aligned with what many hope a treaty process would look like. The term was first introduced to non-Aboriginal Australia in 1979 when the National Aboriginal Conference recommended a Treaty of Commitment be entered into between the Australian government and Aboriginal nations. The group decided to use a word from an Aboriginal language for the process and settled on Makarrata. What would an Aboriginal treaty be about? Aboriginal demands for what should be included in a treaty are as diverse as Aboriginal nations and individuals. Here are some of the main ideas: Sovereignty. Acknowledge that Aboriginal people have at no time ceded, relinquished or acquiesced any part of their sovereign existence and status. They want a “a space of our own, free from influence of government”. Land rights. Recognition that Aboriginal people have always maintained a property right in land and the natural resources according to their law and customs. They want an acknowledgement that Australia has not been settled. They want freehold, not native title. People who cannot reconnect to their traditional lands need to be included. Shared power. A sharing of power with non-Aboriginal people through allocated seats. Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#ixzz54nX7E4JD

Cont: Representation. A permanent national Aboriginal body. Guaranteed consideration of interests. Too often governments don’t consider Aboriginal interests in their decisions. A treaty could be an “insurance policy” that puts Aboriginal interests at the forefront of Aboriginal policy. Recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal people as the First Peoples of Australia and the distinct rights that flow from this. (This is not referring to the governments ‘Recognise’ campaign which many Aboriginal people reject outright.) But also recognising the past, the need to first acknowledge what has happened to Aboriginal people. For many it’s about recognising that Australia was invaded and not colonised. Reforms. Agreements on the reforms required to reach a more just society and account for Aboriginal dispossession. Statutory entitlements. This can include reparation, compensation and benefit sharing. John Pilger, a journalist who works tirelessly for the cause of Aboriginal people, sees a treaty as “an effective Indigenous bill of rights: land rights, resources rights, health rights, education rights, housing rights, and more”. [7] A treaty is about “treat—ing” Aboriginal people with respect and dignity. Kamilaroi woman Natalie Cromb has her own definition: “A Treaty would be the basis upon which the sovereign Indigenous people of Australia and the government could negotiate the terms of rights to land, minerals and resources and the self-governing of communities.” [12] For some, sovereignty is even more important than treaty. Treaty is also a lot about the need of leadership. Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#ixzz54nYhtaVL

Note this document above identifies that Australia was invaded and not settled. This means under International Law that if this stands the aboriginals have no rights to land or Government. They need to decide their position!

Hi Josephus,

I'm not convinced about your last point: when the Allies invaded Nazi Germany, I don't think they took anybody's land, except that of war criminals (and maybe not even that). An invasion is, after all, an act to supplant the former sovereignty, political control, by that of the invaders, it doesn't need to affect systems of land ownership and use.

But apart from that, your elucidation of what has to be in a treaty between Aboriginal groups, 'nations', 'tribes', clans (and perhaps between themselves, but that's their business) - sounds like a piece of cake. A doddle. We should be able to put all that in place by the 250th anniversary of Cook's landing in two years.

Cheers,

Joe